In Charben Duarte y Oliveros v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court acquitted the petitioner, Charben Duarte, of illegal possession of dangerous drugs due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere strictly to the chain of custody rule. This ruling underscores the importance of meticulously following the procedures outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, ensuring the integrity of evidence and protecting individuals from potential police abuses. The decision emphasizes that the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody and justify any deviations from the prescribed procedure; otherwise, the accused’s acquittal is warranted.

When a Sling Bag Leads to Freedom: How Chain of Custody Saved Charben Duarte

The case began when police officers responded to a shooting incident and found Duarte with a gunshot wound. During a search, they discovered a gun, a grenade, a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, and various drug paraphernalia in his sling bag. The RTC convicted Duarte for violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, while acquitting him of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, prompting Duarte to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in reversing the CA’s decision, focused on the integrity of the corpus delicti, emphasizing that in illegal drug cases, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty. This means that the prosecution must account for each link of the chain of custody, from seizure to presentation in court. The chain of custody rule, as it is known, is a set of procedures designed to ensure the integrity and identity of seized drugs. This includes proper marking, inventory, and documentation, all of which must be conducted in the presence of the accused and certain mandatory witnesses.

The Court, in its analysis, referred to the essential procedures outlined in RA 9165, particularly concerning the presence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory and photography of seized items. Before the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, the law required the presence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), along with any elected public official. After the amendment, the requirement shifted to an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.

In this case, the inventory and photography were only conducted in the presence of an elected public official, specifically Kgd. Ulderico, but lacked the presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media. This deviation from the mandatory procedure raised serious concerns about the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The court underscored the importance of these witnesses, explaining that their presence is crucial to “ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.”

The Court reiterated that compliance with the chain of custody procedure is a matter of substantive law, not merely a procedural technicality. It emphasized that these requirements serve as safety precautions against potential police abuses, especially given the severe penalties associated with drug offenses. This highlights the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual rights and ensuring fair trials, especially in cases where the stakes are high.

However, the Court also acknowledged that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible due to varying field conditions. In such cases, the prosecution must provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance and demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The saving clause, found in Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 and later adopted into the text of RA 10640, allows for non-compliance under justifiable circumstances. However, the prosecution must prove these circumstances as a matter of fact, rather than relying on presumptions.

Regarding the witness requirement, the Court stated that non-compliance may be excused if the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, even if they ultimately failed to appear. This involves a case-to-case evaluation, with the goal of determining whether the failure to comply was reasonable under the specific circumstances. The court cautioned that mere statements of unavailability, without actual attempts to contact the required witnesses, are insufficient to justify non-compliance. In cases where police officers have ample time to prepare for an operation, they are expected to make the necessary arrangements to ensure compliance with the chain of custody rule.

The Court, in People v. Miranda, emphasized the prosecution’s duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody, regardless of whether the defense raises the issue. Failure to do so could result in the overturning of a conviction, even if the issue is raised for the first time on appeal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide a justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses during the inventory and photography of the seized items. The defense lawyer had already pointed out the absence of the DOJ and media representatives during the cross-examination of PO1 Galauran, creating an opportunity for the prosecution to address the issue. However, the prosecution failed to elicit testimony establishing earnest efforts to secure the presence of all required witnesses.

Because of this unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule, the Court concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Duarte were compromised. Consequently, Duarte’s acquittal was warranted. This decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors about the importance of strictly adhering to the chain of custody rule in drug-related cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established the chain of custody of the seized drugs, particularly concerning the presence of mandatory witnesses during inventory and photography. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to justify the absence of required witnesses, leading to a compromise in the integrity of the evidence.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule refers to the established procedure for documenting and tracking the handling of evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence, preventing any tampering, alteration, or substitution.
Who are the mandatory witnesses required during the inventory and photography of seized drugs?	Before RA 10640, the law required representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), along with any elected public official. After RA 10640, the requirement shifted to an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.
What happens if the chain of custody is broken?	If the chain of custody is broken, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are compromised, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused. However, non-compliance may be excused if the prosecution provides justifiable grounds and demonstrates that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
What is the prosecution’s responsibility in establishing the chain of custody?	The prosecution bears the burden of establishing each link in the chain of custody, from the seizure of the drugs to their presentation in court. They must also account for any lapses in the procedure and provide justifiable reasons for non-compliance.
Can a conviction be overturned if the chain of custody is not properly established?	Yes, a conviction can be overturned if the chain of custody is not properly established, especially if the prosecution fails to justify deviations from the mandatory procedure. The Supreme Court has emphasized that compliance with the chain of custody rule is a matter of substantive law.
What is the saving clause in relation to the chain of custody rule?	The saving clause, found in Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 and adopted into RA 10640, allows for non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must prove these grounds as a matter of fact.
What efforts must be made to secure the presence of mandatory witnesses?	Apprehending officers must exert genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of mandatory witnesses. Mere statements of unavailability, without actual attempts to contact the witnesses, are insufficient to justify non-compliance.

The Duarte case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases. By prioritizing the integrity of evidence and the protection of individual rights, the Supreme Court reinforces the need for law enforcement to comply with the chain of custody rule and the need for prosecutors to present a strong case based on admissible evidence.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: CHARBEN DUARTE Y OLIVEROS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 238971, August 28, 2019